The Political And Social Doctrine Of Fascism

DAY TO DAY PAMPHLETS
No. 1 8

THE POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF FASCISM

BENITO M, 6SOLINI

AN AUTHORISED TRANSLATION BY

JANE SOAMES

THE HOGARTH PRESS

One Skilli$ut net

THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF FASCISM

DAY TO DAY PAMPHLETS

No. I. Russia To-day and To-morrow. By Maurice Dobb. Third
Impression, ij. 6d.

No. 2. Unemployment: Its Causes and Their Remedies. By
R. Trouton, with a Foreword by J. M. Keynes, is. 6d.

No. 3. The Horrors of the Countryside. By C. E. M. Joad. is. 6d.

No. 4. What We Saw in Russia. By Aneurin Bevan, M.P., E. J.
Strachey, M.P., and George Strauss, M.P. is.

No. 5. Protection and Free Trade. By L. M. Fraser, Fellow of
Queen’s College, Oxford, is. 6d.

No. 6. Ulster To-day and To-morrow. By Denis Ireland, is. 6d.

No. 7. Russian Notes. By C. M. Lloyd, is. 6d.

No. 8 . From Capitalism to Socialism. By J. A. Hobson, is. 6d.

No. 9. The Crisis and the Constitution. By H. J. Laski. is. 6d.
and as. 6d.

No. 10. On Marxism To-day. ByMaurice Dobb. is. 6d.

No. II. If We Want Peace. By H. N. Brailsford. is. 6d. and 2s. 6d.

No. 12. Soviet Education. By R. D. Charques. is. 6d.

No. 13. Modern Art and Revolution. By Sir Michael Sadler, is.

No. 14. Disarmament: A Discussion. By Lord Ponsonby. is. 6d.

No. 15. The Spanish Constitution. By H. R. G. Greaves, is. 6d.

No. 16. The Case for West-Indian Self-Government. By C. L. R.
James. i.v.

No. 17. Caste and Democracy. By K. M. Panikkar. is. 6d.

No. 18. The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism. By Benito
Mussolini. 15.

No. 19. The Future of the House of Lords. By Harold J. Laski.

No. 20. The Worker and Wage Incentives. By W. F. Watson, is. 6d.

THE POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF FASCISM

BENITO MUSSOLINI

An authorized translation by
Jane Soames

FOURTH IMPRESSION

PUBLISHED BY LEONARD AND VIRGINIA WOOLF
AT THE HOGARTH PRESS, 52 TAVISTOCK SQUARE
LONDON W.G.

1934

Seco-txtl Iwp-ressio*x
I'H-ifd I-nxP^rmssion.
JRoxtirtH Im-ptressioxi

Oci.,

Oci.,

Z>cc.,

1933

1933

1933

1934

]iCAT>E AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BV TSE
GARDEN CITY PRESS LTD., LBTCB WORTB , ITERTS.

This is an authorized translation of an article
contributed by the Duce in 1932 to the
fourteenth volume of Enciclopedia Italiana.
It is the only statement by Mussolini of the
philosophic basis of Fascism.

When, in the now distant March of 1919, I sum-
moned a meeting at Milan through the columns of
the Popolo Italia of the surviving members of the
Interventionist Party who had themselves been in
action, and who had followed me since the creation
of the Fascist Revolutionary Party (which took place
in the January of 1915), I had no specific doctrinal
attitude in my mind. I had a living experience of one
doctrine only — that of Socialism, from 1903-4 to the
winter of 1914 — that is to say, about a decade: and
from Socialism itself, even though I had taken part in
the movement first as a member of the rank and file
and then later as a leader, yet I had no experience of
its doctrine in practice. My own doctrine, even in
this period, had always been a doctrine of action. A
unanimous, universally -accepted theory of Socialism
did not exist after 1905, when the revisionist move-
ment began in Germany under the leadership of
Bernstein, while under pressure of the tendencies of
the time, a Left Revolutionary movement also ap-
peared, which though never getting further than talk
in Italy, in Russian Socialistic circles laid the
foundations of Bolshevism. Reformation, Revolu-
tion, Centralization — already the echoes of these
terms are spent — while in the great stream of Fascism

7

are to be found ideas which began with Sorel, Peguy,
with Lagerdelle in the “ Mouvement Socialiste,” and
with the Italian trades-union movement which
throughout the period 1904-14 was sounding a new
note in Italian Socialist circles (already weakened by
the betrayal of Giolitti) through Olivetti’s Pagine
Libre^ Orano’s La Lupa^ and Enrico Leone’s Divenire
Sociale.

After the War, in 1919, Socialism was already dead
as a doctrine: it existed only as a hatred. There
remained to it only one possibility of action, especi-
ally in Italy, reprisals against those who had desired
the War and who must now be made to “ expiate ”
its results. The Popolo Italia was then given the
sub-title of “ The newspaper of ex-service men and
producers,” and the word producers was already the
expression of a mental attitude. Fascism was not the
nursling of a doctrine worked out beforehand with
detailed elaboration; it was bom of the need for
action and it was itself from the beginning practical
rather than theoretical; it was not merely another
political party but, even in the first two years, in
opposition to all political parties as such, and itself a
living movement. The name which I then gave to
the organization fixed its character. And yet, if one
were to re-read, in the now dusty columns of that
date, the report of the meeting in which the Fasci
Italiana di combattimento were constituted, one would
there find no ordered expression of doctrine, but a
series of aphorisms, anticipations and aspirations
which, when refined by time from the original ore,

8

were destined after some years to develop into an
ordered series of doctrinal concepts, forming the
Fascist political doctrine — different from all others
either of the past or the present day.

“ If the bourgeoisie,” I said then, ‘‘ think that they
will find lightning-conductors in us, they are the
more deceived; we must start work at once. . . . We
want to accustom the working-class to real and
effectual leadership, and also to convince them that
it is no easy thing to direct an industry or a com-
mercial enterprise successfully. . . . We shall combat
every retrograde idea, technical or spiritual. . . .
When the succession to the seat of government is
open, we must not be unwilling to fight for it. We
must make haste; when the present regime breaks
down, we must be ready at once to take its place. It
is we who have the right to the succession, because
it was we who forced the country into the War, and
led her to victory. The present method of political
representation cannot suffice, we must have a repre-
sentation direct from the individuals concerned. It
may be objected against this programme that it is a
return to tiie conception of the corporation, but that
is no matter. . . . Therefore, I desire that this
assembly shall accept the revindication of national
trades-unionism from the economic point of view.

Now is it not a singular thing that even on this
first day in the Piazza San Sepolcro that word “ cor-
poration ” arose, which later, in the course of the
Revolution, came to express one of the creations of

9

social legislation at the very foundation of the
regime ?

The years which preceded the march to Rome
were years of great difficulty, during which the
necessity for action did not permit of research or any
complete elaboration of doctrine. The battle had to
be fought in the towns and villages. There was much
discussion, but — what was more important and more
sacred — men died. They knew how to die. Doctrine,
beautifully defined and carefully elucidated, with
headlines and paragraphs, might be lacking; but
there was to take its place something more decisive —
Faith. Even so, anyone who can recall the events of
the time through the aid of books, articles, votes of
congresses and speeches of great and minor impor-
tance — anyone who knows how to research and
weigh evidence — will find that the fundamentals of
doctrine were cast during the years of conflict. It was
precisely in those years that Fascist thought armed
itself, was refined, and began the great task of
organization. The problem of the relation between
the individual citizen and the State; the allied
problems of authority and liberty; political and social
problems as well as those specifically national — a
solution was being sought for all these while at the
same time the struggle against Liberalism, Democ-
racy, Socialism and the Masonic bodies was being
carried on, contemporaneously with the “ punitive
expedition.” But, since there was inevitably some
lack of system, the adversaries of Fascism have
disingenuously denied that it had any capacity to

10

produce a doctrine of its own, though that doctrine
was growing and taking shape under their very eyes,
even though tumultuously; first, as happens to all
ideas in their beginnings, in the aspect of a violent
and dogmatic negation, and then in the aspect of
positive construction which has found its realization
in the laws and institutions of the regime as enacted
successively in the years 1926, 1927, and 1928.

Fascism is now a completely individual thing, not
only as a regime but as a doctrine. And this means
that to-day Fascism, exercising its critical sense upon
itself and upon others, has formed its own distinct
and peculiar point of view, to which it can refer and
upon which, therefore, it can act in the face of all
problems, practical or intellectual, which confront
the world.

And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and
observes the future and the development of humanity
quite apart from political considerations of the
moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the
utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the
doctrine of Pacifism — bom of a renunciation of the
struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of
sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension
all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility
upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.
All other tri^s are substitutes, which never really
put men into the position where they have to make
the great decision — the alternative of life or death.
Thus a doctrine which is founded upon this harmful
postulate of peace is hostile to Fascism. And thus

II

hostile to the spirit of Fascism, though accepted for
what use they can be in deaUng with particular
political situations, are all the international leagues
and societies which, as history will show, can be
scattered to the winds when once strong national
feeling is aroused by any motive — sentimental, ideal,
or practical. This anti-Pacifist spirit is carried by
Fascism even into the life of the individual; the
proud motto of the Squadrista^ ‘‘ Me ne frego,”
written on the bandage of the wound, is an act of
philosophy not only stoic, the summary of a doctrine
not only political — ^it is the education to combat, the
acceptation of the risks which combat implies, and a
new way of life for Italy. Thus the Fascist accepts
life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising
suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and
struggle and conquest, life which should be high and
full, lived for oneself, but above all for others — those
who are at hand and those who are far distant,
contemporaries, and those who will come after.

This ‘‘ demographic ” policy of the regime is the
result of the above premise. Thus the Fascist loves
in actual fact his neighbour, but this ‘‘ neighbour ’’
is not merely a vague and undefined concept, this
love for one’s neighbour puts no obstacle in the way
of necessary educational severity, and still less to
differentiation of status and to physical distance.
Fascism repudiates any universal embrace, and in
order to live worthily in the community of civilized
peoples watches its contemporaries with vigilant
eyes, takes good note of their state of mind and, in

12

the changing trend of their interests, does not allow
itself to be deceived by temporary and fallacious
appearances.

Such a conception of life makes Fascism the com-
plete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called
scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist
conception of history; according to which the history
of human civilization can be explained simply
through the conflict of interests among the various
social groups and by the change and development in
the means and instruments of production. That the
changes in the economic field — new discoveries of
raw materials, new methods of working them, and
the inventions of science — ^have their importance no
one can deny; but that these factors are sufficient to
explain the history of humanity excluding all others
is an absurd delusion. Fascism, now and always,
believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in
actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or
indirect. And if the economic conception of history
be denied, according to which theory men are no
more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves
of chance, while the real directing forces are quite
out of their control, it follows that the existence of an
unchangeable and unchanging class -war is also
denied — the natural progeny of the economic con-
ception of history. And above all Fascism denies that
class-war can be the preponderant force in the trans-
formation of society. These two fundamental con-
cepts of Socialism being this refuted, nothing is left
of it but the sentimental aspiration — as old as

13

humanity itself— towards a social convention in
which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest
shall be alleviated. But here again Fascism repudiates
the conception of “ economic ” happiness, to be
realized by Socialism and, as it were, at a given
moment in economic evolution to assure to everyone
the maximum of well-being. Fascism denies the
materialist conception of happiness as a possibility,
and abandons it to its inventors, the economists of
the first half of the nineteenth century: that is to say.
Fascism denies the validity of the equation, well-
being-happiness, which would reduce men to the
level of animals, caring for one thing only — to be fat
and well-fed — and would thus degrade humanity to
a purely physical existence.

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole com-
plex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates
it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its prac-
tical application. Fascism denies that the majority,
by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct
human society; it denies that numbers alone can
govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it
affirms the immutable, beneficial and fruitful ine-
quality of mankind, which can never be permanently
levelled through the mere operation of a mechanical
process such as universal suffrage. The democratic
regime may be defined as from time to time giving
the people the illusion of sovereignty, while the real
effective sovereignty lies in the hands of other con-
cealed and irresponsible forces. Democracy is a
regime nominally without a king, but it is ruled by

many kings — ^more absolute, tyrannical and ruinous
than one sole king, even though a tyrant. This ex-
plains why Fascism, having first in 1922 (for reasons
of expediency) assumed an attitude tending towards
republicanism, renounced this point of view before
the march to Rome; being convinced that the ques-
tion of political form is not to-day of prime impor-
tance, and after having studied the examples of
monarchies and republics past and present reached
the conclusion that monarchy or republicanism are
not to be judged, as it were, by an absolute standard ;
but that Aey represent forms in which the evolution
— political, historical, traditional or psychological —
of a particular country has expressed itself. Fascism
supersedes the antithesis monarchy or republicanism,
while democracy still tarries beneath the domination
of this idea, for ever pointing out the insufficiency of
the first and for ever the praising of the second as the
perfect regime. To-day, it can be seen that there are
republics innately reactionary and absolutist, and
also monarchies which incorporate the most ardent
social and political hopes of the future.

Reason and science,” says Renan (one of the
inspired pre-Fascists) in his philosophical medita-
tions, are products of humanity, but to expect
reason as a direct product of the people and a direct
result of their action is to deceive oneself by a
chimera. It is not necessary for the existence of
reason that everybody should understand it. And in
any case, if such a decimation of truth were neces-
sary, it could not be achieved in a low-class demo-

15

cracy, which seems as though it must of its very
nature extinguish any kind of noble training. The
principle that society exists solely through the well-
being and the personal liberty of all the individuals
of which it is composed does not appear to be con-
formable to the plans of nature, in whose workings
the race alone seems to be taken into consideration,
and the individual sacrificed to it. It is greatly to
be feared that the last stage of such a conception of
democracy (though I must hasten to point out that
the term ‘ democracy ’ may be interpreted in various
ways) would end in a condition of society in which a
degenerate herd would have no other preoccupation
but the satisfaction of the lowest desires of common
men.” Thus Renan. Fascism denies, in democracy,
the absurd conventional untruth of political equality
dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility,
and the myth of ‘‘ happiness ” and indefinite pro-
gress. But, if democracy may be conceived in diverse
forms — that is to say, taking democracy to mean a
state of society in which the populace are not reduced
to impotence in the State — Fascism may write itself
down as “ an organized, centralized and authoritative
democracy.”

Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete
opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the
political field and the field of economics. There
should be no undue exaggeration (simply with the
object of immediate success in controversy) of the
importance of Liberalism in the last century, nor
should what was but one among many theories

i6

which appeared in that period be put forward as a
religion for humanity for all time, present and to
come. Liberalism only flourished for half a century.
It was bom in 1830 in reaction against the Holy
Alliance, which had been formed with the object of
diverting the destinies of Europe back to the period
before 1 789, and the highest point of its success was
the year 1848, when even Pius IX was a Liberal.
Immediately after that date it began to decay, for if
the year 1848 was a year of light and hope, the
following year, 1849, was a year of darkness and
tragedy. The Republic of Rome was dealt a mortal
blow by a sister -republic — ^that of France — and in the
same year Marx launched the gospel of the Socialist
religion, the famous Communist Manifesto. In 1851
Napoleon III carried out his far from Liberal coup
d^etat and reigned in France until 1870, when he was
deposed by a popular movement as the consequence
of a military defeat which must be counted as one of
the most decisive in history. The victor was Bismarck,
who knew nothing of the religion of liberty, or the
prophets by which that faith was revealed. And it is
symptomatic that such a highly civilized people as
the Germans were completely ignorant of the religion
of liberty during the whole of the nineteenth century.
It was nothing but a parenthesis, represented by that
body which has been called “ The ridiculous Parlia-
ment of Frankfort,” which lasted only for a short
period. Germany attained her national unity quite
outside the doctrines of Liberalism — a doctrine
which seems entirely foreign to the German mind, a

X7

mind essentially monarchic — while Liberalism is the
logical and, indeed, historical forerunner of anarchy.
The stages in the achievement of German unity are
the three wars of '64, ’66, and ’70, which were guided
by such “ Liberals ” as Von Moltke and Bismarck.
As for Italian unity, its debt to Liberalism is com-
pletely inferior in contrast to that which it owes to
the work of Mazzini and Garibaldi, who were not
Liberals. Had it not been for the inter vention of the
anti-Liberal Napoleon, we should not have gained
Lonibardy; and without the help of the again anti-
Liberal Bismarck at Sadowa and Sedan it is very
probable that we should never have gained the
province of Venice in ’66, or been able to enter Rome
in ’70. From 1870 to 1914 a period began during
which even the very high priests of the religion them-
selves had to recognize the gathering twilight of their
faith — defeated as it was by the decadence of lite-
rature and atavism in practice — that is to say.
Nationalism, Futurism, Fascism. The era of
Liberalism, after having accumulated an infinity of
Gordian knots, tried to untie them in the slaughter
of the World War — and never has any religion
demanded of its votaries such a monstrous sacrifice.
Perhaps the Liberal Gods were athirst for blood ?
But now, to-day, the Liberal faith must shut the
doors of its deserted temples, deserted because the
peoples of the world realize that its worship —
agnostic in the field of economics and indifferent in
the field of politics and morals — will lead, as it has
already led, to certain ruin. In addition to this, let

18

it be pointed out that all the political hopes of the
present day are anti-Liberal, and it is therefore
supremely ridiculous to try to classify this sole creed
as outside the judgment of history, as though history
were a hunting ground reserved for the professors of
Liberalism alone — as though Liberalism were the
final unalterable verdict of civilization.

But the Fascist negation of Socialism, Democracy
and Liberalism must not be taken to mean that
Fascism desires to lead the world back to the state of
affairs before 1789, the date which seems to be
indicated as the opening years of the succeeding
semi-Liberal century: we do not desire to turn back;
Fascism has not chosen De Maistre for its high-priest.
Absolute monarchy has been and can never retum,any
more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority.

So, too, the privileges of the feudal system “ have
been,” and the division of society into castes im-
penetrable from outside, and with no intercommuni-
cation among themselves : the Fascist conception of
authority has nothing to do with such a polity. A
party which entirely governs a nation is a fact
entirely new to history, there are no possible refer-
ences or parallels. Fascism uses in its construction
whatever elements in the Liberal, Social or Demo-
cratic doctrines still have a living value ; it main-
tains what may be called the certainties which we
owe to history, but it rejects all the rest — that is to
say, the conception that there can be any doctrine of
unquestioned efficacy for all times and all peoples.
Given that the nineteenth century was the century

19

of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does
not necessarily follow that the twentieth century
must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and
Democracy : political doctrines pass, but humanity
remains ; and it may rather be expected that this will
be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a
century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century
was a century of individualism (Liberalism always
signifying individualism) it may be expected that this
will be the century of collectivism, and hence the
century of the State. It is a perfectly logical deduc-
tion that a new doctrine can utilize all the still vital
elements of previous doctrines.

No doctrine has ever been bom completely new,
completely defined and owing nothing to the past ;
no doctrine can boast a character of complete
originality; it must always derive, if only historically,
from the doctrines which have preceded it and
develop into further doctrines wWch will follow.
Thus the scientific Socialism of Marx is the heir of
the Utopian Socialism of Fourier, of the Owens and
of Saint-Simon ; thus again the Liberalism of the
eighteenth century is linked with all the advanced
thought of the seventeenth century, and thus the
doctrines of Democacy are the heirs of the Encyclo-
pedists. Every doctrine tends to direct human
activity towards a determined objective ; but the
action of men also reacts upon the doctrine, trans-
forms it, adapts it to new needs, or supersedes it with
something eke. A doctrine then must be no mere
exercise in words, but a living act; and thus the value

20

of Fascism lies in the fact that it is veined with
pragmatism, but at the same time has a will to exist
and a will to power, a firm front in face of the
reality of ‘‘ violence.”

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the
State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism
conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison
with which all individuals or groups are relative,
only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.
The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a
directing force, guiding the play and development,
both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but
merely a force limited to the function of recording
results : on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself
conscious, and has itself a will and a personality —
thus it may be called the “ ethic ” State. In 1929, at
the first five -yearly assembly of the Fascist regime,
I said :

“ For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian,
preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the
personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organiza-
tion with purely material aims, such as to guarantee
a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions
of life ; for a mere council of administration would
be sufficient to realize such objects. Nor is it a purely
political creation, divorced from all contact with the
complex material reality which makes up the life
of the individual and the life of the people as a whole.
The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism,
is a spiritual and moral fact in itself, since its political,
juridical and economic organization of the nation is

21

a concrete thing : and such an organization must be
in its origins and development a manifestation of the
spirit. The State is the guarantor of security both
internal and external, but it is also the custodian and
transmitter of the spirit of the people, as it has grown
up through the centuries in language, in customs and
in faith. And the State is not only a living reality of
the present, it is also linked with the past and above
all with the future, and thus transcending the brief
limits of individual life, it represents the immanent
spirit of the nation. The forms in which States
express themselves may change, but the necessity for
such forms is eternal. It is the State which educates
its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness
of their mission and welds them into unity ; har-
monizing their various interests through justice, and
transmitting to future generations the mental con-
quests of science, of art, of law and the solidarity of
humanity. It leads men from primitive tribal life to
that highest expression of human power which is
Empire: it links up through the centuries the names
of those of its members who have died for its existence
and in obedience to its laws, it holds up the memory
of the leaders who have increased its territory and
the geniuses who have illumined it with glory as an
example to be followed by future generations. When
the conception of the State declines, and disunifying
and centrifugal tendencies prevail, whether of indi-
viduals or of particular groups, the nations where
such phenomena appear are in their decline.”

From 1929 until to-day, evolution, both political

22

and economic, has everywhere gone to prove the
validity of these doctrinal premises. Of such gigantic
importance is the State. It is the force which alone
can provide a solution to the dramatic contradictions
of capitalism, and that state of affairs which we call
the crisis can only be dealt with by the State, as
between other States. Where is the shade of Jules
Simon, who in the dawn of Liberalism proclaimed
that, “ The State must labour to make itself un-
necessary, and prepare the way for its own dismissal”?
Or of McCulloch, who, in the second half of the last
century, affirmed that the State must guard against
the danger of governing too much ? What would the
Englishman, Bentham, say to-day to the continual
and inevitably -invoked intervention of the State in
the sphere of economics, while according to his
theories industry should ask no more of the State
than to be left in peace ? Or the German Humboldt,
according to whom the ‘‘ lazy ” State should be con-
sidered the best ? It is true that the second wave of
Liberal economists were less extreme than the first,
and Adam Smith himself opened the door — ^if only
very cautiously — which leads to State intervention in
the economic field : but whoever says Liberalism
implies individualism, and whoever says Fascism
implies the State. Yet the Fascist State is unique,
and an original creation. It is not reactionary, but
revolutionary, in that it anticipates the solution of
the universal political problems which elsewhere
have to be settled in the political field by the rivalry
of parties, the excessive power of the Parliamentary

23

regime and the irresponsibility of political assemblies ;
while it meets the problems of the economic field by
a system of syndicalism which is continually increas-
ing in importance, as much in the sphere of labour as
of industry: and in the moral field enforces order,
discipline, and obedience to that which is the deter-
mined moral code of the country. Fascism desires
the State to be a strong and organic body, at the
same time reposing upon broad and popular sup-
port. The Fascist State has drawn into itself even
the economic activities of the nation, and, through
the corporative social and educational institutions
created by it, its influence reaches every aspect of the
national life and includes, framed in their respective
organizations, all the political, economic and spiritual
forces of the nation. A State which reposes upon the
support of millions of individuals who recognize its
authority, are continually conscious of its power and
are ready at once to serve it, is not the old tyrannical
State of the medieval lord nor has it anything in
common with the absolute governments either before
or after 1789. The individual in the Fascist State is
not annulled but rather multiplied, just in the same
way that a soldier in a regiment is not diminished
but rather increased by the number of his comrades.
The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a
sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the
latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful
freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding
power in this question cannot be the individual, but
the State alone.

24

The Feiscist State is not indifferent to the fact of
religion in general, or to that particular and positive
faith which is Italian Catholicism. The State pro-
fesses no theology, but a morality, and in the Fascist
State religion is considered as one of the deepest
manifestations of the spirit of man, thus it is not only
respected but defended and protected. The Fascist
State has never tried to create its own God, as at one
moment Robespierre and the wildest extremists of
the Convention tried to do; nor does it vainly seek to
obliterate religion from the hearts of men as does
Bolshevism: Fascism respects the God of the ascetics,
the saints and heroes, and equally, God as He is
perceived and worshipped by simple people.

The Fascist State is an embodied will to power and
government: the Roman tradition is here an ideal of
force in action. According to Fascism, government
is not so much a thing to be expressed in territorial
or military terms as in terms of morality and the
spirit. It must be thought of as an Empire — that is
to say, a nation which directly or indirectly rules
other nations, without the need for conquering a
single square yard of territory. For Fascism, the
growth of Empire, that is to say the expansion of the
nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and
its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are
rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are
always imperialist; any renunciation is a sign of
decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best
adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspira-
tions of a people, like the people of Italy, who are

25

rising again after many centuries of abasement and
foreign servitude. But Empire demands discipUne,
the co-ordination of all forces and a deeply -felt sense
of duty and sacrifice : this fact explains many aspects
of the practical working of the regime, the character
of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe
measures which must be taken against those who
would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable move-
ment of Italy in the twentieth century, and would
oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the
nineteenth century — repudiated wheresoever there
has been the courage to undertake great experiments
of social and political transformation: for never
before has the nation stood more in need of authority,
of direction and of order. If every age has its own
characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs
which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine
of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing,
this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a
living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in
the minds of men, is demonstrated by those who
have suffered and died for it.

Fascism has henceforth in the world the uni-
versality of all those doctrines which, in realizing
themselves, have represented a stage in the history
of the human spirit.

26